Ben Smith Argues That Liberal Support For Health Bill Vindicates Rahm Emanuel

Apparently, Rahm Emanuel's media buddies could not resist the urge to write another love piece. Today, Ben Smith of Politico asserts that a new poll which shows that liberal voters support healthcare reform vindicates Emanuel. Emanuel has argued that the White House should not make concessions to liberals because they would come around eventually.

Smith's article, however, is too simplistic as an analysis of contemporary politics. First, the passage of reform legislation cannot vindicate Emanuel since, as numerous articles report, he favored a much slimmer bill and feared that a large one would not pass. If anything, the passage of this bill -- though smaller than what many liberals wanted -- proves Emanuel wrong.  Emanuel argued that comprehensive reform would not pass; he -- not the liberals -- was wrong.

Second, Smith misunderstands the debate among liberals regarding healthcare reform. Liberals have always favored reform, and many liberals always favored the Senate bill. Many liberals, however, were angry that the White House did not do enough to support more progressive and sensible measures like the public plan option. The public plan represented the most rational argument regarding cost containment (other than a single-payer system). Although President Obama advocated it during the campaign, he never forcefully backed it as president. This angered liberals, causing some people to argue that Congress should abandon the Senate bill and start the process again.

But after the "kill" option evaporated, liberals -- contrary to the White House line -- accepted compromise. The fact that liberals now support this good yet flawed bill actually proves Emanuel and the White House wrong.  White House staff circulated a narrative that portrayed liberals as unforgiving and unwavering ideologues (also known as "fucking retards"). Obama, on the other hand, was portrayed as the smart pragmatist.  The mainstream narrative about liberals was clearly inaccurate.

Finally, Smith makes the mistake of equating one battle with an entire war. The struggle over healthcare reform has emboldened many liberals.  Labor unions have threatened moderate Democrats with primary challenges.  MoveOn has promised the same. Even Obama has shown some needed spunk and told on-the-fence Democrats that he would not raise money for them if they voted against the bill. Liberals have always wanted a fight. The fact that they accept this mixed victory does not vindicate Rahm Emanuel in any way, shape or form. It simply shows that liberals can cut their losses and move forward when appropriate. It does not mean, however, that they have become a doormat for the White House or Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps, Smith's analysis is merely wishful thinking.

Robert Kagan: I Talked to Our "Allies Everywhere," And They Are All Mad At Obama

The Washington Post has published an article by Robert Kagan that bears a shocking title: "Allies everywhere feeling snubbed by President Obama."  Kagan wants readers to believe that he has talked to US allies "everywhere" and that they uniformly believe Obama has snubbed them.  Nice try.

Here is Kagan's "evidence" for his dramatic claim that US relations with its allies has worsened under the Obama Administration -- a meme shamelessly propagated by the some of the same conservatives who loathe the United Nations and who supported banning "french fries" during the Iraq War.  Notice the vague, unspecific and conclusory nature of Kagan's "analysis":

In Britain, people are talking about the end of the "special relationship" with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan (emphasis added).

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy [Note: a conservative] has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). [Note: Kagan never cites to any specific criticism.]

In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security.

Among top E.U. officials there is consternation that neither the president nor even his Cabinet seems to have time for the European Union's new president, Herman Van Rompuy, who, while less than scintillating, is nevertheless the chosen representative of the post-Lisbon Treaty continent. Europeans in general, while still fond of Obama, have concluded that he is not so fond of them -- despite his six trips to Europe -- and is more of an Asian president [Note: Well, given US's economic dependency on Asian nations, perhaps showing them deeper attention is a brilliant move.]

Relations with Japan are rocky, mostly because of the actions of the new government in Tokyo but partly because of a perception that the United States can't be counted on for the long term.
 
In India, there are worries that the burgeoning strategic partnership forged in the Bush years has been demoted in the interest of better relations with China.

Finally, after a long list of gossipy and conclusory statements that reads like a dressed-up National Inquirer essay, Kagan offers the following damning commentary:

This administration pays lip-service to "multilateralism," but it is a multilateralism of accommodating autocratic rivals, not of solidifying relations with longtime democratic allies. Rather than strengthening the democratic foundation of the new "international architecture" -- the G-20 world -- the administration's posture is increasingly one of neutrality, at best, between allies and adversaries, and between democrats and autocrats. Israel is not the only unhappy ally, therefore; it's just the most vulnerable.

My Take
This is one of the poorest attempts at journalism from the Washington Post since the recent publication of a string of Rahm Emanuel love essays. The article does not even pretend to offer any reliable factual support for the serious claim that the relationship between the US and its allies is deteriorating "everywhere."   Instead, Kagan simply repeats the same negative conservative chatter that already saturates the airwaves.  For an article that puports to offer such a dramatic finding of fact, Kagan's effort is grossly underwhelming.

See also: Obama’s Foreign Policy and The Right: What Memes May Come

Absolute Lunacy From New Jersey: Appeals Court Rules That State Must Allow Recall Petition to Proceed

A New Jersey Appeals Court has ruled that state election officials must allow a recall petition of Senator Menedez to proceed.  This is a baseless ruling.  The best thing the court could say about the constitutional question is the following indecisive point:

To summarize, we neither declare the recall provision in our State Constitution as applied to a United States Senator definitively valid or invalid (emphasis added).

I have discussed this matter before (see here). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that neither Congress nor states can alter the requirements and conditions for members of Congress. The Court has precluded Congress from refusing to sit duly elected members due to "unethical" conduct. The Court has also precluded states from establishing term limits for members of Congress.

The recall is a more invasive step than a term limit. Furthermore, the Framers considered but refused to adapt language that would have allowed for the recall of members of Congress. The only method the Constitution provides for "recall" is the expulsion process. That power, however, rests with Congress alone -- not the states.

The New Jersey court discusses this abundant precedent and concludes that it provides a strong argument against the constitutionality of the New Jersey recall provision. Nevertheless, the court morphs into a first-year law student and pretends that the absence of language in the Constitution or prior cases explicitly mentioning "recall" means that the question remains undecided and that it cannot invalidate a state constitutional ruling without definitive authority.

Most shockingly, the New Jersey court holds that the absence of precise language in the Constitution on this issue could mean that states retain the power to recall members of Congress. This is the exact argument that the Supreme Court rejected in the term limits ruling. The New Jersey court, however, cites to Justice Thomas' dissent in the term limits case to support this proposition. So, the New Jersey court actually behaved in a manner that is less sophisticated than first-year law students. They know better (at least my students) than to base an argument on a rejected point of law. Hopefully, the New Jersey Supreme Court will reverse this stupid ruling. Stupid is the best word I can use to describe it.

Rep. Grayson's ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL Email Response to Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin traveled to Florida in order to urge voters to oust the outspoken Democrat Representative Alan Grayson. Grayson's campaign, however, responded with an absolutely brutal email to supporters. I have highlighted some of the zingers.

Subject: Palin Attacks Grayson; Grayson Applies Calamine Lotion to the Resulting Reddish Skin

On Friday night, Sarah Palin came to Orlando, and attacked Rep. Alan Grayson. This is what she said:

"I got to meet quite a few candidates who are lining up in a contested primary who want to take out Alan Grayson. And I think Alan Grayson -- what can you say about Alan Grayson? Piper is with me tonight, so I won't say anything about Alan Grayson that can't be said around children. [Good one, Sarah!] But thank you, Florida, for allowing candidates in a contested primary to duke it out over ideas and principles and values, all with the same goal, and that is unseating those who have such a disconnect from the people of America. That's what the goal is here in this race against Alan Grayson. Please fight hard, and do this for the rest of the country. Fight hard, and send a conservative to Washington, DC."

Palin, the former half-term Governor, current-nothing and future-even-less, charmed the all-Republican audience with her folksy folksiness and her homespun homespunnery. Atypically, Palin was wearing clothes that she had paid for herself. At the end of the event, she shared her recipe for mooseface pie.

In response to Palin's attack on Rep Grayson, Grayson actually complimented Palin. Grayson praised Palin for having a hand large enough to fit Grayson's entire name on it. He thanked Palin for alleviating the growing shortage of platitudes in Central Florida.

Grayson added that Palin deserved credit for getting through the entire hour-long program without quitting. Grayson also said that Palin really had mastered Palin's imitation of Tina Fey imitating Palin. Grayson observed that Palin is the most-intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush.

When asked to comment about what effect Palin's criticism might have, Grayson pointed out, "As the Knave's horse says in Alice in Wonderland, 'dogs will believe anything.'" Earlier, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, Grayson said, "I'm sure Palin knows all about politics in Central Florida, since from her porch she can see Winter Park," which is part of Grayson's district.

Grayson said that the Alaskan chillbilly was welcome to return to Central Florida anytime, as long as she brings lots of money with her, and spends it. "I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them," Grayson added, alluding to Politifact's "liar, liar, pants on fire" evaluation of much of what Palin has said.

Scientists are studying Sarah Palin's travel between Alaska and Florida carefully. They hope to learn more about the flight patterns of that elusive migratory species, the wild Alaskan dingbat.

Seriously? Ouch.

UPDATE: Ken Cuccinelli Says: I'm Not A Birther

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says that he is not a birther. Cuccinelli responded to several recent blog posts that link to audio of him saying that it is not "beyond the realm of possiblity" that President Obama was born in Kenya, rather than the United States.  Cuccinelli says that he was giving a "hypothetical" answer to a "hypothetical" legal question.  The part about Kenya, however, was not phrased as a hypothetical. In fact, it was phrased as being possible (not merely hypothetical).

Is the Anti-Gay Virginia Attorney General Also A "Birther"?

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli created a stir recently by demanding that public colleges and universities in Virginia rescind GLBT-inclusive policies. Governor Bob McDonnell quieted the storm by releasing an executive directive prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination by state workers.

Now, Cuccinelli is at the center of another potential controversy. Several blogs, including Huffington Post, have posted audio of Cuccinelli speaking during a campaign event. One attendee asks Cuccinelli about President Obama's birth and how to challenge his claim of birthright citizenship. Cuccinelli maps out a legal strategy for a possible lawsuit.  He also says that it is not "beyond the realm of possiblity" that Obama was born in Kenya, rather than the United States.

I have not found any official confirmation that Cuccinelli's voice is actually on the tape.  Several sources, however, claim that it is his voice.   See update below.

Here is the recording:



PS: I would like to hear the remainder of the discussion.

See also: Virginia blogger outs state attorney general as a birther

Update: UPDATE: Ken Cuccinelli Says: I'm Not A Birther

What A Joke: Republicans Deny Similarities Between Massachusetts Healthcare Refrom And Democratic Proposals

This one is from the surreal vault. Republicans are trying to distinguish Massachusetts healthcare reform -- endorsed by Mitt Romney and Senator Scott Brown -- from the federal proposals pending in Congress.

Last week, Brown described the Democrats' reform proposals as "bitter" and "destructive." David Axelrod, appearing on ABC's This Week, criticized Brown's statement, noting the similarities between the Democratic proposals and the Massachusetts policy.

Senator Lindsay Graham, who appeared after Axelrod, however, disputed Axelrod's comments: "No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington." Graham explains that: "We didn’t cut Medicare — they didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts."

Graham's effort to distinguish the Massachusetts policy from the Democratic proposals is foolhardy. First, states cannot raise federal taxes, nor can they reform the Medicare program. So, Graham's explanation regarding the differences between Massachusetts policy and the federal proposals is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Massachusetts plan and federal proposals are also quite similar in terms of substance. The Wonk Room has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the two packages, showing the dramatic similarities. Also, Think Progress nicely summarizes the similarities:

[T]he plan implemented by former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts is very similar to the Democratic proposal. Both plans require people to purchase coverage and both provide affordability credits to those who can’t afford insurance. Both create insurance exchanges, both establish minimum creditable coverage standards for insurers, and both require employers to contribute towards reform.

Romney implemented the Massachusetts plan as governor of the state, and Brown voted for it as a member of the state legislature. Romney apparently wants to run for president again, and he believes he must portray the Massachusetts reforms in a false light in order to appeal to Republicans. Brown is trying to score points with the GOP as well, and he is distorting history to achieve this goal as well. Their weak effort to distance their prior stances from highly similar Democratic proposals, however, is not fooling anyone. The record is too clear to deny.